Choice USA announced its awardees for the G2GC awards given out July 17. There are awards for Challenging the System (Organizing, Policy and Elected Official), Setting the Message Straight, Leading by Example and Sharing the Legacy.

The event is in the evening, at LeftBank, a bar on 18th Street in Washington, D.C.

Last week, Donna Edwards was sworn into Congress as the 91st woman serving this session.

At the same time, we found out that the House dropped a provision in a bill that would return the option of providing low cost or free birth control to pharmaceutical companies. I think we've gone over this, but here's how it goes

the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act provided that the government get the lowest cost of drugs, including nominal pricing

pharmaceutical companies that manufactured birth control used to give places like university health centers and Planned Parenthood birth control at nominal prices (free or really inexpensive)

these providers could then pass on the savings - college birth control prices are often free or a fraction of market price (using the term "market" very loosely as it applies to anything health-related)

Eli Crowley (NY) and Barack Obama (IL) introduced a fix, which was then put in the War Supplemental bill moving through the House and Senate

May 23, the provision was stripped, and many said that the President wouldn't sign the bill with the provision in tact

So what does Donna Edwards have to do with all this? The United States is around 68th in international ranking for the proportion of women in office. Women's issues, even if the Democrats purport to support them, just aren't a priority. I don't know if it was Jill or Linda Hirschman who said it, but the Dems don't really support women's issues, since, well, where else are we to go?

This War Supplemental is a great example. Are you kidding me that President Bush would veto the war funding bill with this small no-cost provision in it? And then the Democrats back down? Did they know that they're in charge? If the Dems are in charge, and the Dems won't include this provision in a large bill that absolutely must go forward to fund the war effort, including the safety of the troops, why ever would the Dems back down on this? Is President Bush really going to refuse to fund his own war, and pull the troops out? Seems like a really good place to be, if you're a Democrat drafting this bill.

If we want Congress to pay attention to our needs, we need to be in Congress; if we want the Board of Education to accurately represent our educational needs, including comprehensive sex ed, we need to be on the Board of Education; if we want the state to take action on abortion an health insurance laws, we need to be in state elected positions.

Yesterday I was thrilled to go to a screening of In the Family, a documentary about being positive for the genetic mutation linked to breast and ovarian cancer (BRCA). The movie was a compelling story about a young woman who found at age 27 that she had a deleterious mutation, meaning she was at increased risk for these cancers . Joanna has a more than 90% lifetime risk of getting breast cancer, and around a 50% risk of getting ovarian cancer. Unfortunately, there's just no way to know when the shoe will drop.

Joanna spends the film dealing with her issues of being young and single, but also explores other people who may be genetically predisposed to breast and ovarian cancer. So, for example, an unmarried young woman who wants to have children may wait to have an oophorectomy, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a woman who's had children wants to have the surgery. It's intense, and there are horrible side effects. But, as a woman whose breast cancer has metastasized to her brain says, at least it's life.

One of the things that was interesting was the discussion about choices - what to do, when, and when to disclose this information. Should a teenager be tested? What if you don't want to know? What should you do? Are you to blame if you don't take preventive measures? Sharon Terry, from the Genetic Alliance, spoke about this issue as it relates to many other genetic issues, especially in terms of screening of embryos. Why bother screening for Down's Syndrome if folks are going to continue the pregnancy (although I'm sure some preparation could be helpful). Is it useful to know information, like genetic information, on which you cannot act?

With respect to the BRCA mutations, some people do act. In the UK, it's been approved that people can screen embryos with pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for the BRCA mutations that cause breast and ovarian cancer, or the onces that cause colon and other cancers. Other people may screen embryos for other mutations or conditions, including deafness and sex.

You probably saw yesterday's Post article on contraceptive-free drug stores. This, in response to pharmacists who are fired for refusing to fill such prescriptions, create stores that don't put pharmacists or owners in any ethical jam. Unless you think that not having access to birth control or the Morning After Pill is unethical.

The fight over access to birth control has come a long way, and it's apparently not over.

And, frankly, there are still some health concerns re: contraceptives. For example, the Ortho Evra patch, sold by J&J, has a higher risk of clots than previously believed. Now, I'm not saying the Patch is necessarily dangerous, but it's more dangerous than we thought. And part of that is because J&J, according to litigants, hid information about the risk of the Patch. Now, it's using that preemption argument I mentioned last week to defend itself from lawsuits.

There are an increasing number of reports on a Pill for men, and always new thoughts on contraceptives for women, but they all seem like incremental changes to me.

Also, you know how I've been talking about HPV and other cancers, besides cervical, for like, a billion years now? My sister sent me an e-mail today saying that my theory re: anal cancer might be right. (I told her that, um, it's not a theory, it's just not common knowledge) She sent me an article from an Australian paper on oral cancer and HPV. Again, it's not news, but whatever. The Canadian government is now thinking about vaccinating men against HPV too.

Speaking of HPV, y'all know that I have ties to Qiagen, which makes the only HPV test on the market in the US. Anyway, Qiagen is appealing a patent loss which would allow another company to make an HPV test.

Should we talk more about patents? Barr won a patent suit against Bayer for Yasmin. Since this happened months ago, you probably already have a generic pack of Yasmin in your hands if you want one. Bayer stock fell after the news.

I'm really not going to talk about FDA preemption here, but I do want to let you all know what's going on in the courts. Here's the quick and dirty version of the recent Supreme Court case: This guy had a balloon angioplasty, and depending upon which case you read, his doctor either did or did not inflate the balloon properly. In any case, the thing blew up in his heart, almost killing him (but didn't). He sued the manufacturer of the balloon catheter, and in February the Supreme Court ruled that federal FDA law didn't allow for state tort suits, which is how you sue someone when crap like this happens. There is a Supreme Court case coming up testing the same law, but with respect to drugs, not devices. The reason I'm telling you this is that it's J&J's defense for suits regarding Ortho-Evra, the patch. Plus, it's one of the things I've been geeking out about lately.

Have you or anyone you know had a hard time paying for an abortion? A clinic in Iowa wants to know.

We don't have a lot of deaths from abortion anymore, thanks, largely, due to legal abortions and antibiotics. Occasionally, we do, and it's just tragic. Of course, there's more here than just a teenager dies of abortion. She had a legal abortion and bled to death waiting for a transfusion, and, it sounds like it was also an incomplete abortion. Plus, she didn't want to have an abortion, but her boyfriend (and maybe his family) wanted her to.

Okay, I'm going to have to sort through a whole lot of stuff, and figure out how to use this upgraded software.

I took a few weeks off. Months, maybe. It's been busy over here, what with the election, abortion fundraisers, and, you know, my day job. So anyway, I'm back.

Yesterday I was out with a friend for lunch - both of us have spent time at NARAL, and we are both so pissed about the NARAL endorsement of Barack Obama. Not because he's particularly BAD on choice, but because it was a shitty thing to do to Hilary Clinton, who has been great on choice. As faithful readers know, I have seen them both speak on choice at a Planned Parenthood event, and she seemed to know everything there is to know. Also, if I was at NARAL, I would have wanted some sort of value for my endorsement. Like a mutual admiration society. I may have missed it, but I haven't heard Mr. Obama talk about how much he admires NARAL, and how he's going to use NARAL as a resource in the future.